Renu v. State (NCT Of Delhi )
$~5 & 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2451/2025 and CRL.M.A. No. 19324/2025 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 1436/2025 RENU .....Petitioner Through:
None.
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through:
Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State with SI Nitin Kumar, PS- Farsh Bazar.
Mr. Shahid ali, Mr. Sameer Tayyb, Mr. Mohd.
Salman and Mr. Ahmed Saeed, Advocates for R2 + BAIL APPLN. 2467/2025 and CRL.M.A. No. 19410/2025 and CRL.M.A. 19411/2025 PRADEEP .....Petitioner Through:
None.
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through:
Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State with SI Nitin Kumar, PS- Farsh Bazar.
Mr. Shahid ali, Mr. Sameer Tayyb, Mr. Mohd.
Salman and Mr. Ahmed Saeed, Advocates for R2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
O R D E R
% 04.11.2025 1.
Present petitions have been filed by petitioners under Section 482 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.0367/2023, P.S. Farsh Bazar, under Section 420/506/34 IPC. 2.
Previous two order sheets dated 09.07.2025 and 18.08.2025 reveal that there was no representation on behalf of petitioners. Even today, there The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 11:38:32
is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners. 3.
Perusal of order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Bail Appl. 2589/2024 and connected matter shows that similar petitions seeking anticipatory bail were earlier filed by the petitioners and the same came to be dismissed by this Court vide said order.
4.
It appears that thereafter the order dated 21.01.2025 was assailed by petitioners by preferring an SLP (Crl.) Diary no. 23704/2025. The said SLP was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.05.2025, observing as under:
<2. Having considered the matter(s) in its entirety and taking into account the stand of learned counsel for the complainant, who appeared suo motu in the present case and assisted the Court by reading out the relevant portion of the agreement for sale, which indicates that the possession of the ground floor was handed over by the petitioner to the complainant in lieu of initial payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) at the time of the agreement, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order(s) impugned.= 5.
This Court is of the view that once anticipatory bail of the petitioners has been dismissed on merits by this Court, which order was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, present petitions again seeking anticipatory bail in connection with same FIR, are not maintainable. 6.
Accordingly, petitions along with pending applications, are dismissed. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J NOVEMBER 4, 2025/jg The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 11:38:32